Less than one week after the launch of a new international Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a new UN report has called for a moratorium on “Lethal Autonomous Robotics,” weapons that would be able to select and attack targets without any human intervention.

The 22-page report by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or [...]]]>

Less than one week after the launch of a new international Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a new UN report has called for a moratorium on “Lethal Autonomous Robotics,” weapons that would be able to select and attack targets without any human intervention.

The 22-page report by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Professor Christof Heyns, is dated April 9, 2013 and was uploaded to the United Nations Human Rights Council website on April 29. Heyns is expected to deliver the report in person during the week of May 27.

The report contains recommendations for government action, including:

Something remarkable happened at the United Nations in New York on Thursday evening (March 28), when member states failed to adopt a long-sought treaty to regulate the arms trade. Politicians “deplored” the way in which agreement on the Arms Trade Treaty text had been “thwarted” by three of the world’s most abusive regimes: Iran, Democratic People’s Republic [...]]]>

Something remarkable happened at the United Nations in New York on Thursday evening (March 28), when member states failed to adopt a long-sought treaty to regulate the arms trade. Politicians “deplored” the way in which agreement on the Arms Trade Treaty text had been “thwarted” by three of the world’s most abusive regimes: Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and Syria. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed “disappointment,” describing the failure as a “setback.”

Yet despite the bluster this apparent defeat is in reality a double-win for everyone in favour of the Arms Trade Treaty and working to advance humanitarian disarmament. It’s also a great example of how international law can be achieved when sustained civil society pressure ensures governments stick to the plan and do what they have committed to do.

After the previous Arms Trade Treaty conference held under President Moritan of Argentina collapsed in July 2012, states reconvened for two weeks starting March 18, 2013 to negotiate and adopt a treaty under a new president Peter Woolcott, Australia’s Geneva-based disarmament ambassador. At around 3.30pm on Thursday, March 28, Woolcott held a plenary session to discuss his updated version of the draft text, bluntly telling negotiators to “take it or leave it.”

In turn Iran, North Korea, Syria were given the floor to outline their opposition to draft text of the proposed Arms Trade Treaty. Mexico‘s delegation leader, Juan M. Gómez-Robledo, then laid down the gauntlet, proposing that the draft text be adopted despite the objections because there’s no formal definition of consensus in the UN. Nigeria, Japan, Costa Rica, and Chile supported the proposal, but Iran again objected, and Russia warned, “we should never ignore the views of the minority.”

Woolcott conceded that there was no consensus on adopting the text and said the conference report would reflect that. He then gave the floor to Kenya, which delivered a statement on behalf of a group of eleven states: Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, the United Kingdom, and–most crucially–the United States.

The joint statement said that after years of hard work ”it is time to act.” and proposed that the draft text issued by the President and annexed to the report of the conference be sent to the UN General Assembly for a vote. Kenya presented a draft resolution calling on General Assembly to adopt the treaty text, which would then be opened for signature on 3 June 2013.

Nation after nation lined up to speak in support of the proposal as well as endorse the resolution. The US said it “deeply regrets” the lack of consensus, but would vote for the treaty’s adoption. A few more states objected as, ever-patient, the president gave Iran, North Korea, Syria and other opponents the opportunity to voice their opposition, dragging out adoption of the conference report for four more hours.

But putting up with the treaty opponents for a few more hours was nothing after seven years of the drawn-out process to conclude the treaty. And it didn’t matter because the game was over the moment that the world’s biggest proponent of democracy endorsed voting the treaty into life. As Woolcott remarked on concluding the conference at 10.27pm, “A treaty will not emerge from this process, but a treaty is coming.”

The chief US negotiator, Thomas M. Countryman, later told the press that the US would support the treaty because it would promote global security, advance humanitarian objectives and curb illegal arms sales, all without affecting the constitutional right to bear arms. He reportedly said, ”I would rather be on opposite side of Syria, Iran, DPRK than join them in criticism of this treaty.” The National Rifle Association can be added to that list.

In Geneva, at the Convention on Conventional Weapons and elsewhere, consensus decision-making has allowed a tiny minority of states to hamper progress to address disarmament concerns, from the abolition of nuclear weapons to a ban on white phosphorus. Yet major powers including China, Russia and the US have long defended the consensus procedure, including in the Conference on Disarmament, where there has been no substantive work since 1997.

Countryman told media there was no “inconsistency” in the US position on consensus, emphasizing that it was always part of the plan, as “we always knew that this could go to the General Assembly.” The 2009 UNGA resolution stated that the treaty must be negotiated on the basis of consensus, a key demand for the US vote in support of it.

Yet the US negotiator also emphasized that, ”it is the desire of the vast majority of states to have all of the major importing states and exporting states support this treaty and ultimately sign and adhere to it.” It remains to be seen if the US jettisoning of consensus in the Arms Trade Treaty process will be replicated elsewhere or if the action represents a tentative step towards embracing humanitarian disarmament successes such as the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which is undergoing a US policy review.

Getting the US on board was a key aim for the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and some of the other governments seeking to create an Arms Trade Treaty. They adopted a long-term approach that included waiting out the Bush administration (by starting with “consultations” in 2006) and agreeing in 2009 to a consensus-based negotiation. Consensus-based negotiations typically result in lower standards in order to accommodate the lowest-common denominator, but the extent to which the final Arms Trade Treaty text was negatively influenced from this still needs to be considered.

Consensus was resisted by many NGOs participating in the campaign for the Arms Trade Treaty and their efforts were crucial in securing the governments’ exit route via the UN General Assembly in a 2012 UNGA resolution. As the irrepressible leader of the Control Arms campaign, Anna MacDonald of Oxfam, explained to The New York Times, “We have known all along that the consensus process was deeply flawed.” This view shared across a range of governments and civil society groups seeking to tackle a range of pressing humanitarian disarmament challenges.

Tuesday’s vote on the UN General Assembly resolution to adopt the treaty will provide the movement with clarity for its next phase of work by clearly identifying the states that are committed to implementing the treaty’s provisions and those who were just along for the ride. Tune in and to watch the vote to see the Arms Trade Treaty coming into being.

The core provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty will be examined in another post once it is adopted.

UPDATE – The Arms Trade Treaty was adopted on 2 April 2013 by a vote of 154 in favor, three opposed, and 23 abstentions. It will be opened for signature on 3 June 2013. 

See also:

• UN summary of 28 March 2013
• Reaching Critical Will summary of 28 March 2013
• Reuters post by Anna MacDonald, Oxfam
• Post on ‘final’ negotiating conference in July 2012
• Post on the problem with the Conference on Disarmament

On 4-5 March 2013, a highly-anticipated conference to consider the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons of governments was convened by Norway in Oslo. This write-up covers some of the highlights from this latest humanitarian disarmament initiative, which seeks to reframe the debate on nuclear weapons in humanitarian terms and initiate swift action by like-minded states [...]]]>

On 4-5 March 2013, a highly-anticipated conference to consider the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons of governments was convened by Norway in Oslo. This write-up covers some of the highlights from this latest humanitarian disarmament initiative, which seeks to reframe the debate on nuclear weapons in humanitarian terms and initiate swift action by like-minded states in support of the abolition of nuclear weapons.

A total of 127 countries participated in the Oslo conference, in addition to UN organizations, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and civil society representatives from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). The broad participation by two-thirds of all UN member states was described by Norway as “recognition that this is an issue of fundamental significance for us all.”

The Oslo conference was billed as “an arena for a fact-based discussion of the humanitarian and developmental consequences of a nuclear weapons detonation.” Participants were invited to take stock of the consequences of and ability to respond to any use of nuclear weapons, a method that New Zealand said, “renewed the opportunity for us to live up to our collective responsibility to advance nuclear disarmament.”

The conference website lists three “key points” or findings from the presentations and discussions in Oslo.

First is the overwhelming acknowledgment from governments and humanitarian organizations such as the ICRC and Norwegian People’s Aid that no effective relief or humanitarian response would be possible in the case of a nuclear weapon detonation. The conference found that it “might not be possible to establish such capacities, even if it were attempted.” New Zealand provided the sobering experience of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake to reflect on the impossibility of preparing for a nuclear detonation.

A second point was agreement that the use and testing of nuclear weapons has been proven to have “devastating” immediate and long-term effects. As Patricia Lewis noted there are no “small” mistakes with nuclear weapons – “once you’ve detonated them its a huge mistake.”

Survivors of nuclear weapons testing and use provided real-life examples of the historical experience of nuclear weapons and demonstrated their forceful advocacy skills in demanding action on nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Karipbek Kuyukov, an activist and painter from Kazakstan who was born without arms, provided a visible reminder to all delegates of the long-term effects of nuclear weapons testing. In his address to the Oslo conference, Kuyukov said he believed that the “hundreds of nuclear test victims who are no longer with us, watch upon us with approval and countenance.”

Mr. Terumi Tanaka, a survivor or “Hibakusha” from the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, told the conference that “such inhumane, immoral human acts must never be allowed” and affirmed that “the Hibakusha’s experience must be the departure point when we discuss the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.”

The third finding of the conference was that “the effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, irrespective of cause, will not be constrained by national borders.” This message should resonate with states and people, especially youth, seeking to build a movement to abolish nuclear weapons “now” rather than within their lifetimes or their children’s lifetimes.

During the Oslo conference a number of states, including Austria, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, and Switzerland, expressed interest in further exploring the discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

In the final session Mexico announced its intent “as a responsible global actor” to host a follow-up meeting to the Oslo conference. New Zealand committed to “wholeheartedly join in all work” including “any process following on from this meeting and from Mexico’s, that brings us closer to our goal: the elimination of nuclear weapons.”

ICAN co-chair Rebecca Johnson of Acronym Institute left governments with this message: “When you leave here, please continue to think deeply and constructively about what is possible, necessary and achievable to prevent further unacceptable humanitarian harm from these weapons of mass suffering.”

At the conclusion of the conference, the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Espen Barth Eide, tweeted that the deliberations had “reframed” the discourse on nuclear weapons and “introduced new sense of urgency.” Thomas Nash, Director of Article 36, described the Oslo conference as a “pivotal move” and its outcome as “embarking on a road that can only lead to a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.”

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—all nuclear weapon states—declined to attend the Oslo conference, as did Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan. Some P5 diplomats claimed to be “following the presentations” online via social media. There was some truth to this as the Oslo conference was held at exactly the same time as the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva

At the CD, US Ambassador Laura Kennedy emphasized the need for a “practical, step-by-step approach to disarmament.” Similarly the UK defended its support for “step by step approach to disarmament” and pleaded for “help” to “unblock the CD.” China and Russia emphasized process over substance in their CD statements, focusing predictably on the intractable problems faced in the CD. China’s Ambassador Wu Haitao warned that at nuclear disarmament mechanisms outside the CD and UN system would undermine existing processes and at the same time divert the already limited budget. Similarly, Russia’s Ambassador Borodavkin cautioned that failure to leave nuclear disarmament matters in the CD in the presence of all states that have nuclear potential could “pull apart the CD agenda,” leading to a collapse of disarmament mechanisms.

The P5 decision to stay away from the Oslo conference was described by some as a “strategy failure” as these states will not be able to directly influence the next stage of the process or its eventual outcome if they do not participate. Richard Moyes of Article 36 noted, “the train is pulling out of the station but the UK is stuck on the platform.”

Promoters of the Oslo conference pitched it as helping to “strengthen and reinforce” existing international law namely the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as well as nuclear-weapon-free zones, national laws, and other mechanisms and measures.

The Oslo conference enabled anti-nuclear states to channel their exasperation with the failure of existing processes into forward-looking momentum to advance nuclear disarmament with other like-minded states. New Zealand asked, “Why should nuclear disarmament – any more than nuclear non-proliferation – be promoted only in one forum? We see no contradiction in promoting nuclear disarmament inside the NPT and outside it here in Oslo.”

Civil society provided strong support to the Norwegian organizers of the Oslo conference. At a forum convened by the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons prior to the governmental conference, more than 500 activists from 70 countries brainstormed on to ramp up efforts “to get negotiations started on a treaty banning nuclear weapons.”

The civil society forum frequently reflected on lessons from the campaigns for two prime examples of humanitarian disarmament law: the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty and 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. This included how the treaties were achieved via unconventional diplomatic initiatives that “shape the rules to suit the goal, rather than shape goal based on what rules allow.” Bill Pace, who campaigned for the establishment of the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court, warned that countries cannot be allowed to negotiate treaties down to lowest common denominator as they most likely won’t even sign the final product.

These are among many lessons and findings of the Humanitarian Disarmament Campaigns Summit that Human Rights Watch convened in New York in October 2012 with the support of 14 other NGOs. It remains to be seen if they will be taken into consideration when the final negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty open in New York on 18 March.

For more information, see ICAN’s website: www.icanw.org

A total of 127 states participated in the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, FYR Macedonia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar/Burma, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Photo – Parliamentary launch of a New Zealand Red Cross campaign to “make nuclear weapons the target” (c) Mary Wareham, August 2012.

2013 looks set to be a busy year (as always) for the community of governments and non-state actors seeking to advance  humanitarian disarmament, with events including the final Arms Trade Treaty negotiations, a conference to consider  the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, and the launch of a new campaign to stop killer robots. They take [...]]]>

2013 looks set to be a busy year (as always) for the community of governments and non-state actors seeking to advance  humanitarian disarmament, with events including the final Arms Trade Treaty negotiations, a conference to consider  the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, and the launch of a new campaign to stop killer robots. They take place against a backdrop of continued conflict and armed violence in several countries, decreasing aid levels (including for humanitarian mine action), and a perpetually ‘broken’ United Nations (UN) disarmament machinery.

On March 4-5, Norway is holding a conference to consider the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons. More than 100 states have registered to attend, including humanitarian disarmament stalwarts Austria, Chile, Indonesia, Mexico, New Zealand, and South Africa. One big question, however, is will France, Germany or the United Kingdom show? And how will the United States react? Any follow-up process to the Oslo conference depends on how prepared the participating states are to deliver on their nuclear disarmament commitments.

Less than two weeks later, on March 18-28, the final negotiating conference of the Arms Trade Treaty will be held at the UN in New York, perhaps resulting in the adoption of a final agreement or, equally-likely, in lack of consensus on an agreement thus kicking the text down the road again. With the domestic gun control debate raging in the background, it is unclear what influence, if any, the National Rifle Association will have on the US position at the negotiations.

At the same time as the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty begins in Geneva on April 22, over in London a coalition of non-governmental organizations will be launching an international campaign to stop ‘killer robots‘ or fully autonomous weapons. An initial focus for the campaign will be the report on lethal autonomous robotics by UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings Christof Heyns, that will be delivered to the UN Human Rights Council during its second session beginning May 28.

As the second term of the Obama Administration gets underway, humanitarian disarmament challenges will increasingly become legacy benchmarks for his presidency. In the coming months the administration is understood to be preparing to announce several new policy directives on disarmament, including on the long-awaited review on US policy on banning landmines. A positive decision would bolster the Mine Ban Treaty in the lead-up to its 3rd Review Conference, which looks set to be held in Maputo, Mozambique during the first half of 2014.

The humanitarian disarmament spotlight on Africa will intensify when Zambia hosts the 4th annual meeting of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Lusaka on September 10-14. Universalization of the ban convention has slowed significantly over the past year and condemnations of the Syrian regime’s relentless use of cluster munitions have tapered off so it is hoped that Africa will provide the ban movement with an energy boost.

The number and range of arms used in Syria–including prohibited cluster munitions and landmines as well as incendiary weapons, and explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas–have resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties and an ever-worsening humanitarian situation. Elsewhere conflict and armed violence continues to claim civilian lives in countries including Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Colombia, Iraq, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Sudan.

While several like-minded governments are working to advance the humanitarian disarmament agenda in close cooperation with UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and civil society campaigners, back at the UN traditional multilateral diplomacy on arms control and non-proliferation has ground to a halt. The Conference on Disarmament remains paralysed and for the first time in years the Convention on Conventional Weapons does not have a program of substantive work, despite efforts to promote expert review of the protocol on incendiary weapons. A ‘break-though’ seems unlikely, meaning change will have to come from outside.

This overview doesn’t seek to hit on all the highlights, meetings, and actions to come in 2013. For more information, check the Calendar of upcoming events and follow us on Twitter. Please also see the Chronology, which charts significant moments and milestones by the humanitarian disarmament movement.

Photo: This forty-foot metal statue of St. George brandishing a crucifix as he slays a “nuclear dragon” made from ballistic missiles was donated to the UN by the Soviet Union in 1990 and stands just inside the 47th Street entrance at the UN in New York. (c) Mary Wareham, October 2012.

On 16 January 2013, representatives of French NGOs working in the field of humanitarian disarmament held a day-long seminar in Paris to discuss on this new approach to international diplomacy and campaigning. Panel discussions looked at lessons learned and challenges ahead, impacts of the campaigns to ban landmines and cluster bombs, and France’s role. 

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, 90 representatives from non-governmental organizations and global coalitions gathered in New York for a Humanitarian Disarmament Campaigns Summit convened by Human Rights Watch. The Summit Communiqué issued by 31 signatories calls for strong disarmament initiatives driven by humanitarian imperatives to strengthen [...]]]>

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, 90 representatives from non-governmental organizations and global coalitions gathered in New York for a Humanitarian Disarmament Campaigns Summit convened by Human Rights Watch. The Summit Communiqué issued by 31 signatories calls for strong disarmament initiatives driven by humanitarian imperatives to strengthen international law and protect civilians. The Communiqué was delivered to the United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Ms. Angela Kane and distributed to government representatives attending the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security.

A PDF of the Communiqué is available in English and French. The full text and list of signatories is also reprinted below.

Humanitarian Disarmament Campaigns Summit
New York
20-21 October 2012

Communiqué

We support strong disarmament initiatives driven by humanitarian imperatives to strengthen international law and protect civilians. By advancing disarmament from a humanitarian perspective, we seek to prevent further civilian casualties, avoid socio-economic devastation, and protect and ensure the rights of victims.We represent non-governmental organizations and coalitions working in the field of humanitarian disarmament, with the shared objective of protecting civilians from the harmful effects of armed violence. We have come together on the 20^th anniversary of the founding of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate, to review and strengthen our collective work and to expand and further unite our community.

History has shown that the strongest and most significant disarmament achievements have been driven by humanitarian imperatives, as well as by the need to achieve the clearest and highest standards possible. These initiatives have involved genuine cooperation and substantive partnerships between governments, international organizations, and civil society. They have resulted in the complete prohibition of certain types and classes of weapons that cause unnecessary harm, such as antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions.

Humanitarian disarmament achievements are rarely the product of consensus decision–making, but rather created by the solid will of an overwhelming majority. Such approaches stand in stark contrast to processes where those few that want the least have been able to block the progress sought by the many.

Civil society plays a critical role in humanitarian disarmament. Our monitoring and research provides credible, first-hand information on the use of various weapons and the egregious harm they cause to civilian populations. Our advocacy leads to the creation and implementation of strong national and international standards. Our operations in affected countries protect civilians, support conflict recovery, and prevent and reduce armed violence.

We welcome the substantive progress that is being made with respect to existing international humanitarian disarmament treaties, but urge continued vigilance to ensure compliance with, full and effective implementation of, and universalization of these instruments.

The world faces an array of emerging and long-standing humanitarian disarmament challenges that must be tackled as soon as possible. But we cannot do this work alone.

We therefore call on all actors to stay focused on making existing humanitarian disarmament treaties work and use every opportunity to advance international law and practice to prevent harm to civilians.

We urge all states to:

• Adopt a proactive approach to tackle existing and emerging issues of concern in humanitarian disarmament by reviewing and strengthening policy and practice, undertaking national measures, and intensifying diplomatic engagement and political leadership;

• Acknowledge that successful multilateral diplomatic work in humanitarian disarmament is best achieved when based on the will of the overwhelming majority of participating states;

• Recognize that civil society plays a vital role in tackling humanitarian disarmament concerns and work to accord a substantive role for civil society representatives in multilateral processes.

Signatories:

Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy

Action on Armed Violence

Article 36

BioWeapons Prevention Project

Chemical Weapons Convention Coalition

Cluster Munition Coalition

Center for Civilians in Conflict

Ecumenical Campaign for a Strong and Effective Arms Trade Treaty, World Council of Churches

Fundació per la Pau

Green Cross International

Handicap International

Human Rights Watch

IKV Pax Christi

Institute for Security Studies

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

International Campaign to Ban Landmines

International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons

International Committee for Robot Arms Control

International Network on Explosive Weapons

Mines Action Canada

MAG (Mines Advisory Group)

Nobel Women’s Initiative

Norwegian People’s Aid

Oxford Research Group

Peace Boat

Peace Movement Aotearoa

Physicians for Human Rights

Protection

Strategic Concept for Removal of Arms and Proliferation (SCRAP)

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, President, Pugwash Conferences on Science & World Affairs

On Monday disarmament diplomats are convening in the basement of the United Nations in New York to discuss arms transfers for the second time this summer, this time for the Second Review Conference of the 2001 UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and All Its Aspects.

The Programme [...]]]>

On Monday disarmament diplomats are convening in the basement of the United Nations in New York to discuss arms transfers for the second time this summer, this time for the Second Review Conference of the 2001 UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and All Its Aspects.

The Programme of Action is voluntary, non-binding instrument intended to tackle illicit transfers of small arms. During its negotiation, the text was criticized as a ‘Program of Inaction’ and one NGO predicted it would be “unlikely to establish a follow-up process that would hold governments to even their rhetorical commitments.”

The First Review Conference of the Programme of Action in 2006 failed to agree on a formal outcome document or report, thus “failing to provide the General Assembly with either a mandate to conduct a further review in five years, or guidance on future implementation.”  According to one NGO, “divisions surfaced between those states wanting to expand its scope to include provisions on ammunition, civilian possession, and a prohibition on transfers to non-state actors and those that wished only to focus on implementation of the existing measures adopted in 2001.” Oxfam blamed a “tiny minority number of countries for holding the rest of the conference hostage due to the consensus-based decision-making process that guided the conference. States that blocked consensus on that occasion included   the “usual suspects” of Cuba, India, Iran, Israel and Pakistan.

This time, the Second Review Conference is expected to focus on implementation challenges for the Programme of Action. New Zealand’s Ambassador Jim McLay has led preparations for the conference and in a foreword to a new briefing paper by the Small Arms Survey highlights implementation challenges as well as the need for “carefully managing ‘unfinished [Programme of Action] business’ in terms of further normative development.”

While states failed in July to adopt an Arms Trade Treaty regulating licit transfers of arms, that process is due to pick up again in October and there are no serious calls for the Programme of Action to be turned into a legally-binding instrument to tackle illicit transfer of arms. NGOs engaging in the process have focused on the need for stronger national implementation, including stockpile security and the destruction of small arms. The Mines Advisory Group has highlighted the need for international cooperation and assistance to be implemented in a call for states to increase financial assistance necessary for implementation of the Programme of Action.

One NGO has observed that “the incidence of armed violence in many parts of the world has not diminished” in the decade since the Programme of Action was created. Indeed, the conference comes as New York reels from a shooting outside the Empire State Building on Friday morning that left two men dead and injured nine bystanders.

The Second Review Conference runs from 27 August until 7 September 2012 under the presidency of is Ambassador Joy Ogwu of Nigeria.

Australia’s long-awaited ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions came a step closer on Tuesday, 21 August 2012, when the Senate approved legislation to implement the convention. The Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010 passed the Senate by a vote of 29 to 10 and is expected to be signed into law shortly. [...]]]>

Australia’s long-awaited ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions came a step closer on Tuesday, 21 August 2012, when the Senate approved legislation to implement the convention. The Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010 passed the Senate by a vote of 29 to 10 and is expected to be signed into law shortly. Then Australia will deposit its instrument of ratification to the Convention on Cluster Munitions with the United Nations in New York, possibly in advance of the convention’s Third Meeting of States Parties, which opens in Oslo, Norway on 11 September 2012.

The achievement is bitter for campaigners, however. as Australia’s status as a State Party rests on a loophole-ridden implementation law, which permits foreign transit and stockpiling of cluster munitions on Australian territory, allows Australians to assist in the use of cluster munitions, and fails to prohibit investments in the production of cluster munitions.

The legislation was introduced two years ago by the government (Labour) and supported by the main opposition party (Liberals), while the Green Party of Australia and independent Senator Nick Xenophon opposed its adoption without amendments to strengthen and clarify key sections. During Senate deliberation on the Bill, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam proposed a series of amendments to address concerns, but none were accepted due to the support of the major parties.

After the legislation was adopted, the government issued a statement declaring that “the Australian Government will not approve the stockpiling of cluster munitions in Australia by foreign governments,” despite the explicit permission provided by the legislation. Human Rights Watch has called on Australia to make clear that it will “not knowingly assist with the use of cluster munitions.”

There is no question that Australia will be an active and constructive State Party to the convention as it is in other humanitarian disarmament frameworks, such as the Mine Ban Treaty. Still, the implementing legislation sets a poor precedent that other nations, such as Canada, may follow.

The challenge now is two-fold: 1. Ensure that the bad example set by the Australian law is not repeated elsewhere; and 2. Be vigilant in ensuring that Australia acts properly and in compliance with the Convention on Cluster Munitions, despite its legislation permitting it to do otherwise.

Photo: Ambassador Caroline Millar represented Australia during the Oslo Process that resulted in the 2008 adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. (c) John Rodsted, Wellington, February 2008

Survivors or “Hibakusha” of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II are now aged in their 80s and 90s, but they are still traveling the world to promote their call for a nuclear-free Japan and for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Over the past week, New Zealanders have marked [...]]]>

Survivors or “Hibakusha” of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II are now aged in their 80s and 90s, but they are still traveling the world to promote their call for a nuclear-free Japan and for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Over the past week, New Zealanders have marked the 67th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a speakers tour by two visiting Hibakusha: Ms. Shigeko Sasamori and Mr. Michimasa (Michi) Hirata.

At their Wellington talk on 7 August, Ms. Sasamori talked about her experience when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on the morning of 6 August 1945. At the time she was a 13-year-old student working outside “on a beautiful sunny day” clearing rubble left from previous bombing strikes that had become so common that she did not pay much attention when she heard the plane approach. The blast knocked her unconscious and she awoke in “darkness.” Ms. Sasamori saw unimaginable suffering and devastation as she attempted to leave the city and return to her home. After five nights, her family found her in a school auditorium, identifying her from the sound of her weak voice as the skin on her face “was like burnt toast” from radiation burns.

Ms. Sasamori has experienced years of health problems. A decade after the war concluded, she was brought to the United States where she underwent extensive plastic surgery with many skin grafts and operations. She got cancer in 1974, but survived after 20 inches of her intestine was removed. In her concluding remarks, Ms. Sasamori said, “Life is so precious. I don’t want anyone to suffer what I went through” but emphasized ”this is not just peace-makers work – it is everyone’s responsibility” to campaign for nuclear abolition.

Mr. Hirata provided a compelling presentation of the immediate and long-term impacts of the atomic bombs used by the United States in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the “Japanese nuclear experiences” that have followed, such as the nuclear power plant disaster at Fukushima caused by the earthquake and tsunami on 3 March 2011. He commended the Aotearoa New Zealand wing of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (iCAN ANZ) for its work to secure cross-party support for stronger New Zealand leadership on nuclear disarmament.

On 3 August 2012, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee issued its report on an iCAN ANZ petition to the New Zealand Parliament that called on the New Zealand government to actively engage with ‘like-minded’ governments to launch “without delay” a process to negotiate a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. The report says, ”we believe New Zealand should move beyond a position of general support to the forefront of negotiations towards a nuclear weapons convention.”

The committee issuing the report is comprised of seven members of parliament from both the government  (National) as well as opposition (Labour and the Greens). The report did not include a “minority report,” which means that all committee members agreed with its findings, including chair John Hayes (National, Wairarapa), Parliamentary Private Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

The committee report dismisses current policy advice by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which informed the committee during a  hearing in March 2012 that the time is “not right” for a process to create an international treaty to abolish nuclear weapons. According to the committee:

On balance we believe that the time is right for the New Zealand Government to support a nuclear weapons convention. We see New Zealand’s geopolitical role as one of pushing the boundaries towards peaceful resolutions. It has been traditionally ahead of the pack in matters of disarmament, and this is a good opportunity to take an active role regarding the abolition of nuclear weapons, as it did regarding cluster munitions. New Zealand has had a significant impact in this area and we look for this to continue.

Speaking in support of the iCAN ANZ submission at the committee hearing, Edwina Hughes of Peace Movement Aotearoa said it is it essential that the New Zealand government be prepared to play a leading role in an international process to abolish nuclear weapons. On behalf of the Aotearoa New Zealand campaigns to ban landmines and cluster munitions, Mary Wareham described how New Zealand played a central leadership role in the fast-track diplomatic processes to tackle both landmines and cluster munitions, despite initial reservations about embracing an immediate and total ban on antipersonnel mines.

Several countries are currently seeking opportunities and partners to advance international law to abolish nuclear weapons. In April 2012, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Store, announced the government’s intent to hold a conference in Oslo in early 2013 to “highlight different aspects of nuclear weapons as a humanitarian problem.”

New Zealand has legislated a ban on nuclear weapons that requires  the government work to advance nuclear disarmament internationally. Yet when the Minister of Foreign Affairs last spoke on nuclear disarmament, he was dismissive of calls for New Zealand to lead an international ban on nuclear weapons. The government now has 90 days to respond to the committee’s report. Will political leadership respond positively to the call from New Zealand civil society, parliamentarians, and the public? Will the government take action to tackle the humanitarian harm that these weapons cause, as Ms. Shigeko Sasamori and Mr. Michi Hirata so ably communicated? Will it provide clear direction and the necessary resources? Watch this space…

• Photographs by Mary Wareham and Peace Movement Aotearoa
• FADT report and submissions received
• iCAN ANZ update and letters of support

On Friday evening (27 July 2012) at precisely the same time as the spectacle of the Olympics opening ceremony was kicking off in London, across the Atlantic in the basement of the United Nations another spectacle was unfolding as talks aimed at regulating arms transfers collapsed. The president of diplomatic negotiations tasked with concluding the proposed Arms [...]]]>

On Friday evening (27 July 2012) at precisely the same time as the spectacle of the Olympics opening ceremony was kicking off in London, across the Atlantic in the basement of the United Nations another spectacle was unfolding as talks aimed at regulating arms transfers collapsed. The president of diplomatic negotiations tasked with concluding the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, Ambassador Roberto García Moritán of Argentina, declared defeat and closed the conference without adopting the final treaty text, stating, ”I take full responsibility, and apologize deeply for not having brought you to a better ending.”

Earlier in the day, the United States had announced that it needed more time to consider the proposed text of the treaty, and Russia and China then also asked for more time. Despite this warning, many states remained confident that the text could still be adopted given the significant concessions made to accommodate US demands on the draft text.

The International Commiittee of the Red Cross described the final text as “a strong response to the humanitarian problem and a reasonable compromise” following the four weeks of negotiations and years of prepatory meetings and consultations. Describing the objective of an Arms Trade Treaty as “a humanitarian imperative,” the ICRC said the text would have required that states “assess the risk that the conventional arms and ammunition they transfer would be used to commit serious violations of humanitarian law and human rights law – and to deny a transfer if an overriding risk exists.”

In the closing session, Mexico read a statement endorsed by 90 states expressing disappointment and calling on the president to report to the UN General Assembly later in 2012 on the progress made at the negotiations “so that we can finalize our work.” In remarks to media, Amb. Moritán said he was confident a treaty could be agreed by the end of the year.

The US did not speak in the closing plenary, but a few hours later claimed that the negotiations “ran out of time to reach consensus” and expressed US support for “a second round of negotiations, conducted on the basis of consensus … next year.” The US firmly rejected adopting the text at the UN later in 2012, stating “we do not support a vote in the UNGA on the current text.” The US presidential election is scheduled to take place on 6 November 2012.

Despite the disappointing result in New York, several outcomes now look possible for the conclusion of an Arms Treaty. States may vote to adopt the final treaty text when it is submitted to the UNGA by Amb. Moritán later in the year. Or they may take up the US proposal of another consensus-based round of negotiations at the UN in 2013. Both are ”inside” the UN options, as opposed to like-minded states undertaking a process ”outside” UN auspices to agreed on the text, which has been endorsed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other high level UN officials.

For the Control Arms coalition of non-governmental organizations that has been campaigning for effective regulation of the arms trade for the past decade, the need to conclude negotiations on an Arms Trade Treaty is a matter of urgency. Amnesty International has cited the treaty’s potential to “save some of the 500,000 civilian lives  lost each year in armed conflict.”

From the failed negotiations an alliance of governments and NGOs has emerged with a large number of states supporting the objective of a strong treaty as soon as possible. As the ICRC noted, ”an overwhelming majority” of states now “support a norm” requiring them to “not transfer conventional weapons to those who are likely to use them to commit war crimes or serious violations of international human rights law.”

In the interim, on the road to the eventual treaty, there is nothing to hold back states from adopting stronger domestic standards to control arms transfers, including the “strict measures” they were prepared to adopt in New York in July 2012.